• MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    What makes it so the picture has no reality as a rabbit or a duck, but a human being has an objective gender?

    • Allero@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      The fact that gender is self-assessed and self-determined. We can’t ask a picture on whether it’s a rabbit or a duck being depicted, and its author deliberately made it look like both. Also, the objective reality is that it’s just a picture - you are not confronted with a rabbi-duck coming at you.

      We can always ask a person, though, and they do have a certain opinion in what their gender is - an opinion that is essentially a sole basis for gendering someone. So their opinion of their gender essentially defines their gender, which makes it a reality.

      • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I dunno, sounds like you just reinvented social constructs and then pretended they were objective reality.

        Also if opinion is the sole determinant, are you saying I was objectively a boy back before my egg cracked? Like that I was a boy and it was objective reality? Ewwwwww!!!

        • Allero@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Gender itself is entirely a social construct. The reality, however, is that this construct exists in our interactions, and that we are unable to define it based on anything but self-assessment.

          Still, if we switch back to the scope of the objective reality about humans themselves, gender is entirely social.

          Objective reality operates the category of sex and couldn’t care less about whatever we created around it - including gender and gender roles.